13 ms·
It's definitely the case that an armed populace acts as a check against tyranny. You can argue that this is not enough of a benefit to warrant private gun owner
by Thriptic 7y ago
It's definitely the case that an armed populace acts as a check against tyranny. You can argue that this is not enough of a benefit to warrant private gun ownership given the societal costs and low probability of a tyrannical government in the US, but this benefit definitely exists.
- swarnie_ 7y agoHow do you think almost ever other country in the world with more mature and developed democracies manage to maintain human rights without hoarding firearms? I'm genuinely wondering.
- Thriptic 7y agoI am not making the claim that private firearms ownership is required for maintaining human rights. My claim is that it is an additional control against tyranny, which it is. It is more difficult for a tyrannical government to enforce it's will on an armed populace than an unarmed populace.